BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1185
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 1185 (Lieu)
As Introduced February 27, 2009
2/3 vote
JUDICIARY 7-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Brownley, Evans, | | |
| |Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, | | |
| |Monning | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Tran, Knight, Nielsen | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |50-25|(May 26, 2009) |SENATE: |28-7 |(August 31, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Provides that an individual who has undergone a sex
change operation may obtain, by court order, a new birth
certificate reflecting his or her change of sex and any name
change requested, from his or her county of birth, in addition
to his or her county of residence.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : In 1977, California became the first state in the
nation to permit individuals to obtain a new birth certificate
after undergoing a surgical sex change. In order to obtain the
new birth certificate, a transgender individual must first go to
court in his or her county of residence seeking a court order
for a new birth certificate reflecting the change of gender and
any change of name. That court process, however, requires that
the individual be a current resident of California. The process
cannot be used by those who were born in California, but now
live elsewhere. This bill allows anyone who has a California
AB 1185
Page 2
birth certificate to petition the court in his or her county of
birth for a new birth certificate reflecting his or her new
gender and new name.
According to the author: Current law allows a person born in
California who has undergone sex reassignment surgery to
petition the superior court to obtain a new birth certificate
reflecting a change of gender and any associated name change.
However, the law permits a petition for the issuance of a new
birth certificate to be filed only in the superior court in the
county in which the petitioner resides. This restriction
arbitrarily discriminates against transgender people born in
California but now living outside the state, who have otherwise
complied with the law, in accessing accurate identity
documentation.
Birth certificates form the foundation of our everyday
identity documents, including drivers license, social
security cards, and passports. Having accurate
documentation is necessary to function in our society.
Identity is required for opening bank accounts, traveling,
establishing employment, and even for basic purchases.
When the gender on a birth certificate results in the
inability to change basic identifying documents it can be a
traumatic and frustrating experience.
Supporters add that this bill "will end an unnecessary
limitation for California-born transgender people to accessing
proper identity documentation."
Just last month, a California appellate court determined that
California's refusal to issue new birth certificates to
individuals who underwent gender reassignment surgery and who,
while born in California, now reside elsewhere, violates the
Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States
Constitution. (Somers v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th
1407.) The court in that case held that the requirement that a
person seeking a new birth certificate file a petition in his or
her county of residence effectively denies the right to an
amended birth certificate to California-born transgender
individuals who now reside outside of California. The court
AB 1185
Page 3
found that this restriction penalizes individuals for moving
outside of California and found no compelling state interest in
treating California-born transgender individuals residing out of
state differently from California-born transgender individuals
residing in California. Furthermore, the court did not even
find any rational basis for this disparate treatment.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
"The California Courts of Appeal have already provided a remedy
for this issue, therefore this bill is unnecessary."
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0003306